Profiting from Neglect: How Low Expectations Enable Special Education Exploitation
A recent K-12 Dive article discusses the “increasing financial burden” of special education on public school budgets, emphasising the need for districts to scrutinise their spending to manage these rising costs. It frames the issue as a budgetary challenge, with suggestions to evaluate whether current expenditures deliver sufficient “value.” Whilst the article acknowledges the growing number of students requiring special education services in the US, it primarily presents these needs as fiscal liabilities rather than essential supports for students’ development.
This approach reflects a problematic view that treats education as a cost centre, rather than recognising it as a public good that serves the broader society. Special education is not merely an expense to be minimised but a fundamental responsibility to ensure all students have equitable access to learning opportunities. The article misses the mark by focusing narrowly on financial efficiency, rather than considering the long-term societal benefits of investing in comprehensive, inclusive education.
In today’s article, I will explore the pitfalls of framing special education spending solely as a budgetary concern. This includes addressing the systemic profiteering in the special education market, the limitations of standardised metrics in evaluating student outcomes, and the need for policy reforms that prioritise transparency and fairness. By doing so, I will argue that a shift in perspective is needed, one that views education not as a financial burden but as a crucial investment in the public good.
Education as a Public Good vs. Cost Centre
Education, at its core, is a public good that serves the collective well-being of society. It is not merely a commodity to be evaluated through cost-efficiency metrics but a fundamental right that fosters equity, social cohesion, and economic stability. When education is treated as a public good, the focus shifts from calculating returns on investment to recognising its intrinsic value in developing a more inclusive and just society. Special education, in particular, plays a vital role in ensuring that all students, regardless of their abilities, have the opportunity to participate fully in the learning process and reach their potential.
However, framing special education primarily in terms of cost, as seen in the K-12 Dive article, undermines the value of inclusive education. This approach not only reduces students with disabilities to budgetary line items but also overlooks the broader societal benefits that come from investing in accessible education for all. When special education is viewed through a financial lens, the conversation revolves around how much money can be saved, rather than how to improve the quality of services or expand access to those who need them. Such a perspective risks devaluing the educational experiences of students with disabilities, perpetuating a cycle where their needs are seen as secondary to financial considerations.
The neoliberal approach presented in the article, which emphasises financial management and data-driven outcomes, stands in stark contrast to the view of education as a public good. By prioritising budget scrutiny and questioning the value of increased spending, the article frames special education as a burden to be managed rather than a responsibility to be upheld. This “market-driven” mentality fails to acknowledge that the true measure of educational success extends beyond test scores and budget balance sheets, encompassing the long-term social, emotional, and economic benefits that come from ensuring equitable access for all students.
Price Gouging in the SPED Curriculum Market
The special education market has become a lucrative arena for companies like Pro-Ed, which exploit the legal requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to charge exorbitant prices for curricula and adaptive technologies. These companies often know that schools have no choice but to provide the “necessary supports,” allowing them to set prices far beyond the actual cost of development or production. For instance, it is not uncommon for specialised educational programs or adaptive equipment to cost thousands of dollars per student. Whilst schools are obligated to offer these resources, the inflated prices drain limited budgets and make it difficult to allocate funds equitably across other critical needs.
The impact of these inflated costs extends beyond special education budgets, often forcing districts to make difficult trade-offs that affect the entire school community. When a significant portion of the budget is consumed by overpriced SPED products, funding for general education programs, extracurricular activities, and even essential services like counselling may be reduced. This practice not only limits the resources available to all students but also perpetuates disparities, as lower-funded districts are disproportionately affected. Wealthier schools may be able to absorb the high costs of specialised curricula, but less affluent districts struggle to provide comparable support, further widening the opportunity gap.
Profiteering in the special education market fundamentally detracts from education's role as a public good, transforming it into a profit-driven opportunity for private companies. Instead of focusing on providing high-quality, affordable resources to support students’ diverse needs, the SPED market often prioritises profit margins over educational outcomes. This commodification of special education shifts the emphasis from meeting legal and moral obligations to maximising revenue, compromising the quality of services students receive. When companies can freely exploit the requirements of IDEA for financial gain, it undermines the principle that all students deserve an equitable education. To preserve education as a public good, there must be greater scrutiny of these pricing practices and stronger regulations to ensure fair access to necessary resources without exploiting school budgets.
Beyond Standardised Metrics: The Need for Holistic Measures
The article’s reliance on standardised test scores to evaluate the effectiveness of special education services presents a narrow view of educational success. Whilst academic performance is important, measuring special education solely through standardised metrics fails to account for the diverse needs and experiences of students with disabilities (not to mention the issues I’ve continually raised about the lack of accommodations in corporate-facilitated standardised testing). Test scores often do not capture the full scope of growth and progress in areas such as social interaction, emotional regulation, or functional life skills, which are just as essential to students' overall development and long-term well-being. By focusing primarily on data points like reading scores, the article reinforces a limited understanding of what meaningful educational outcomes should look like for students receiving special education services.
Instead of confining evaluations to standardised metrics, there is a need to embrace holistic measures of success that acknowledge the broader range of benefits that special education can offer. For many students with disabilities, progress may be reflected in improved communication skills, greater independence, or enhanced social and emotional functioning—outcomes that standardised tests are not designed to measure. Holistic assessments that incorporate qualitative data, teacher observations, and student self-reports can provide a more comprehensive picture of a student’s growth. Such an approach aligns better with the goals of special education, which aim to support the whole child rather than merely addressing academic deficiencies.
Viewing education as a public good means recognising and valuing these broader benefits over simplified data metrics. When success is narrowly defined by test scores, it reduces students to numbers and disregards the individualised nature of special education. A holistic perspective ensures that all aspects of a student's development are considered, promoting inclusive practices that accommodate diverse learning profiles. This shift is essential to move beyond a reductive, market-driven approach and towards a model of education that genuinely supports the lifelong development of all students, particularly those with disabilities.
Policy Reforms for Transparency and Fair Pricing
To reform the pricing and practices in the special education market, we need to confront deeper systemic issues, including the influence of eugenics-driven policies that continue to shape the legislative agenda. The latest iteration of the AutismCARES Act exemplifies this trend, with its heavy emphasis on “research” that often serves the interests of those who view special education not as an educational endeavour, but as a dumping ground for individuals considered undesirable by society. This outdated but still prevalent perspective reduces special education to a holding area rather than a place where students can thrive. Such a mindset enables opportunists to exploit the system, using the Act's provisions as a “cash cow” to profit off inflated products and services.
The Act’s structure draws in companies that don’t genuinely care about the quality of what they are selling. Instead, they rely on flimsy “evidence” produced by “evidence mills”—marketing firms cosplaying research operations that churn out studies meeting only the minimal requirements to justify their products. These companies then sell their overpriced wares to an unsuspecting public, exploiting the thin standards for what qualifies as “evidence-based” in special education. The lack of robust regulatory oversight allows these opportunists to flood the market with dubious products, further perpetuating the notion that special education is more about containment than genuine educational progress.
To counter this, policy reforms must go beyond just setting fair pricing and transparency requirements. There needs to be a more rigorous standard for what qualifies as ‘evidence-based,’ as well as mechanisms to expose and penalise the opportunists who profit from this exploitation. By demanding higher standards for educational efficacy and putting public accountability measures in place, we can challenge the eugenicist underpinnings that devalue special education and ensure that funding truly supports students’ growth and learning. This would help shift the narrative away from seeing special education as a financial burden and towards recognising it as a vital investment in human potential.
Final thoughts …
The article misses a crucial opportunity to reframe special education as a public good, instead reducing it to a financial burden that must be managed. This perspective reflects a broader societal issue: the low expectations placed on special education and the students it serves. Because many still view special education as a place for those who are “less capable,” there is a pervasive indifference to the quality of resources and interventions provided. These low expectations create fertile ground for capitalists to peddle substandard products, knowing that the bar is set low and accountability is weak.
When interventions fail to deliver meaningful outcomes, the blame is often shifted onto the students themselves, suggesting that they are “too difficult to teach” rather than admitting the truth—that much of what is sold as “evidence-based” is little more than overpriced, ineffective garbage. This cycle of profiteering off the AutismCARES Act and similar policies prioritises shareholder interests over the actual needs of students. The Act was intended to help individuals on the spectrum, but it has become a convenient vehicle for opportunists to exploit, further entrenching a system that fails to value inclusive education as a genuine public good.
A paradigm shift is needed—one that prioritises the intrinsic value of education for all students and recognises the societal benefits of investing in an inclusive approach. Policymakers, educators, and advocates must push for reforms that protect special education from being reduced to mere budget lines and actively resist the commodification of support services. We must demand higher standards, transparency, and accountability to ensure that special education funding is used to benefit students, not corporate bottom lines. It’s time to reclaim the narrative, elevate expectations, and make clear that special education is not a dumping ground but a vital component of a just and equitable society.